Summary of Reading

Chapters 4, 5, and 6 detail the bones of an effective argument. Each effective argument contains Ethos, Pathos, and logos, which are the tone of an argument. To understand the bones of an argument we will need to name them. Now I don’t have a cool song that goes with it like we had in grade school …the knee bone is connected to the shin bone… but each of the bones of an argument also have a name and are intertwined, or connect to each other to form an effective argument. The first one, Enthymeme is an unsubstantiated statement that requires the audience to be like-minded and be under the assumption that the statement is true. It makes a claim and gives a reason. A good example of this would be the different Christian Religions. We all believe in the one Bible however, I am Methodist and we Methodist’s interpret the same Bible different, from say Baptists. I already have an underlying belief in the way Methodists interpret the bible. This underlying belief is a warrant.  However if you don’t just always believe then the preacher needs to add Grounds to his Enthymeme.

Grounds are facts, examples, or even testimonies that support the reason. If you are talking to like-minded people who already believe your warrant then you are ‘good to go’ however, if not then you have to add Backing to your warrant. Backing supports the warrant and persuades the audience to believe. Ok so now, we have enthymeme with grounds and a warrant with backing and why do we need all this, because there are skeptics with rebuttals, and how great they are. Our world would be so boring without ‘skeptics with rebuttals’. Skeptics can refute any part or all of an argument. Which is why the grounds and the backing of your argument must be strong, but don’t worry, if your argument is not that strong, there is one little trick left to help combat a skeptic, the Qualifier. Qualifiers are words that concede to other options, such as the statement “with exception to” or “in rare cases”, because according to Toulmin “… no argument is 100 percent persuasive.”

The preachers in an hour, (well in the Methodist case about 58 minutes, cause we want to beat everyone else to the restaurant) accomplish all of the above.      

To create an intelligent and persuasive argument classical rhetoricians decided that each argument must contain three equal kinds of appeal. Logos Pathos and Ethos. They illustrate the idea with a triangle, a geometric shape with three equal sides. Each kind of appeal is equally important yet there is also a sort of order in which they develop.

At the top of the triangle is Logos, once you have decided on a topic for an argument, it is essential that you find the best evidence and use the most logical reasons to support that argument. Even if the reasons for choosing an argument are emotional, the foundation of the argument should be based in logic.

Next is Pathos which is how you appeal to the audience's beliefs. How can you get your audience to form an emotional connection to your argument. To be really effective the audience needs to become as invested in the argument as you are. I can totally understand this part I have to have some sort of emotional connection to an idea before I can write so why wouldn't I think it would be important to others.

The last but not least is Ethos. The credibility of the writer can make or break the argument. It does not mean you have to be an expert(however it helps) it does mean that the way a writer presents the argument, in tone and style or the way the writer handles the opposing side; can help the audience decide whether you are honestly presenting your argument.

The result is LOGOS, do I have the best and most up to date information;PATHOS can I get the audience emotionally invested in my cause; ETHOS, will they believe what I have to say is credible and honest enough to listen to or act on.

Conceding To Opposing Views

It is good to know that when presenting an opposing argument, that it is not necessary to refute all of the opposing view. Conceding some points can actually help you argument to at least appear to be fair and add credibility. There have been many times I  have read things which I thought the writer actually missed or only skimmed over what I thought was the most important aspect of an issue. Not that I disagreed with everything in a paper just maybe what the actual focus should have been. It is good to know that I can focus on a particular event and not have to disagree with the idea as a whole. On page 132, the author explains that it is not necessary to try to convince an audience to go against what is commonly understood such as legalizing drugs will cause more addicts, only that the benefits to the community as a whole outweigh the risks associated with legalizing drugs. I do not agree with this idea however the analogy shows me how beneficial conceding some points can be.